KARACHI: Setting aside a conviction in a sexual assault case, the Sindh High Court (SHC) has deplored that the underage victim was subjected to trauma by both the police and his own father.
A two-judge SHC bench, headed by Justice Omar Sial, observed that the victim’s father and the investigating officer had weakened the prosecution’s case to the extent that reasonable doubt was created. The court further noted that the investigation was not conducted with the sensitivity required in a case involving a juvenile.
The bench also remarked that the prosecution had been callous in attempting to prove the charge of sodomy during the trial while lawyers for the parties displayed insensitivity during the recording of the victim’s statement. It emphasised that the primary duty to regulate proceedings lay with the trial court, which should have exercised greater care given the involvement of a minor, particularly as the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s allegations.
In October last year, a sessions court had sentenced six men to eight years’ imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy within the jurisdiction of the Bahadurabad police station in 2024. According to the prosecution, the accused had repeatedly subjected the boy to sexual abuse at different places over a period of around six months.
Bench deplores police, father of juvenile victim for putting him through trauma
The convicts challenged the verdict before the SHC. After hearing the parties and examining the record, the bench allowed the appeals and acquitted all appellants.
The judgment noted that the case against the accused rested solely on the victim’s statement. Although the appellants had been convicted under Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Pakistan Penal Code, the medical evidence did not support such a finding.
According to the victim’s testimony, the incidents began five to six months before the registration of the FIR. He submitted that he frequently visited a friend’s house to play, where one of the accused, a security guard, first assaulted him. He further alleged that other accused persons also subjected him to sexual abuse at different times and locations.
However, the bench pointed out critical gaps in the prosecution’s case. It questioned how the victim identified the accused, given that he admitted he did not know them prior to the incidents. While his father claimed that the child had disclosed their names, the record did not explain how, when or where the identification took place.
The court also noted that neither the friend nor his family was examined to confirm whether one of the accused had been employed as a guard at their residence. Similarly, a person named Arif Lakhani, at whose house another alleged incident occurred, was not produced as a witness. The bench held that an adverse presumption would arise from the failure to examine these individuals.
It further observed that CCTV cameras were reportedly installed at the relevant locations, but the investigating officer neither inspected nor secured any footage.
“We have considered the aspect that perhaps what victim wanted to complain about was sexual abuse and not sodomy. Sexual abuse is envisaged in Section 377-A PPC. However, the victim, in his examination left little doubt that what he complained about fell within a Section 377 PPC offence. The child was treated insensitively during his examination. The court should not have permitted that”, it added.
The bench also said, “Certain questions asked of the child should not have been asked. In its bid to “prove” a case of sodomy, the prosecution was callous. The counsels appearing for the parties at trial also displayed insensitivity during the witness examination procedure. The primary duty to regulate proceedings was the Court’s. The Court should have shown greater sensitivity, as a juvenile was involved. The medical evidence brought on record does not reconcile with what the prosecution alleged”.
It further observed that apparent dishonesty and exaggeration in the statement of the victim’s father/complainant and the statement of the victim, obviously made under great stress and nonexistent investigation, as well as the absence of important witnesses, have damaged the prosecution’s case.
“We are saddened to see that a 14-year-old boy has been put through trauma by the police and his own father. It is obvious that the child has been tutored to say what he has. For no rhyme or reason, he was taken to a magistrate to record a Section 164 CrPC statement. We have intentionally refrained from delving further into the statement to point out its weaknesses as they relate to the prosecution’s case. The investigation conducted was not sensitive to the fact that a juvenile was involved”, it added.
Looking at the evidence holistically, it is possible that the child and another person, perhaps also a juvenile, were close, and the dynamics between them enraged the father, who cast the net wide and then had his son provide exaggerated and manipulated details, the bench noted.
It also said, “He [victim’s father] cannot be given any concession on account of apprehension of what society would say, as he himself, through his conduct, has shown absolutely no concern for the well-being of the child by being insensitive to what he should have demanded the child be treated like by the criminal justice system.
The parents’ failure to notice any odd behavior in their son and their failure to notice any physical, mental, or emotional scar of the trauma the father said that the child had been through casts a negative light on them. It is a failure of their parenting as well as of the school/madrassa the child attended. It was the father and the investigating officer who weakened the prosecution’s case to the point that doubt was created”.
Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2026
